User talk:Radiant!

Policymaking

The problem, as I see it, is that wikipedia has competing factions attempting to influence policy, and Wikipedia is large enough now that none of the factions has a clear majority except in edge cases of minimal procedural significance (either because they're so trivial that nobody cares, or because they're so entrenched that there's effectively no chance that they will be changed).

The methods I can see for clearing up this logjam are:

• Gaming the system. That is, asking the "wrong" question so that the inevitable failure to achieve consensus can be creatively interpreted to indicate a consensus in the other direction.
• Edicts from above. We're already seeing this with the OTRS stuff and the WP:OFFICE declarations. G11 is a prime example.
• Ditching the "Discuss, don't vote" philosophy in favor of a vote (or something that approaches "voting" asymptotically).

None of the above methods are particularly appealing, but I don't see any procedural method for clearing the logjam that leaves Wikipedia's core philosophies intact. Asking people to reach reasoned consensus on a method to clear up a procedural logjam when the disagreement between them is what created the logjam in the first place is something of a non-starter.

Something will, eventually, have to give. And my suspicion is that it will be some subset of Wikipedia's core philosophies. I'm fairly certain that we're going to see more edicts handed down from above in the future regarding policy. It does the least amount of damage, is the easiest to justify, and they've already started doing it (thus making it easier to do it in the future -- the thin end of the wedge, as it were, though I don't believe it was intended that way).

All the best,
?xtreme Unction
15:12, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

As the number of people involved in making a decision grows, the chance that there will be someone who will doggedly fight for any given position (regardless of its merit) approaches 100%. One possible way to counter this is to split the project into a republic, and if a particular policy or process ends up working well in practice for one group/state, others may choose to adopt it (we already have this to some extent, with different languages and citizendium adopting slightly different policies/processes). Another option is to form committees to do the critical thinking (no false dichotomies, not necessarily adhering to tradition), and they would generate suggested options that others would have less opportunity to logjam... though it would still be good to get some kind of consensus from everyone (maybe there'd be a straight-up vote, because the false-dichotomy problem would already have been addressed a bit).

Having a republic multiplies the complexity of trying to keep track of policy, but seems more wiki than committees. Maybe we need to recruit more multi-language people to help compare interwiki policy, and generate more documents like Wikipedia:Adminship in other languages. --Interiot 16:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

This is the hot button issue today; one way or another it drives all other serious issues -- all of them, from user conduct through policy proposals and adminship to content disputes. One way or another, all of these troubles are traceable in large part to growing pains. This community has finally grown to the point where consensus-style decision making simply doesn't work anymore.

Consensus is a dearly held principle around here; I've certainly killed enough bytes defending it. For me, though, consensus stands in opposition to autocracy. Others fear more the tyranny of the majority.

I agree that the two obvious alternatives are representative democracy and bureaucracy; I find them both repugnant, the latter much more so. I have a fairly complex alternative to all of these in mind but I fear it may simply be far too novel to get any attention at all. Certainly, one of the worst alternatives to consensus is pure mass democracy, with every issue being decided on a slim margin of straight up community-wide votes. But as the consensus ship sinks, this is going to look like the nearest lifeboat.

At bottom, my worst fear is that the community is simply too wedded to consensus to let it go. Radiant -- no offense -- is putting up a last-ditch defense of consensus and discussion; I think he's not the only diehard. It looks as if the dam is going to break first at RfA, where straight voting is going to take over in time -- for good or ill. It may already be too late to turn the herd in another direction.

I think this crisis is real and bigger than anything else around here -- bigger anyway than pedo-UBX. Dealing with it will take a core group of committed editors who aren't afraid to try something new. Is it time to open a page? Or is the issue so explosive that it should be discussed offwiki before trying to put out a proposal? John Reid 18:39, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

No, keep it on-wiki. I'm interested in hearing ideas, although I guess I'm another wedded to the discuss and reach consensus idea. But there certainly is an issue with a lot more people arriving at Wikipedia with intractable positions. To my mind we need the board to get more involved in some of the issues. If they can see a position of compromise or a position which is most likely to get supported or a position they actually want, they're going to have to start fighting for it. There is now a need for a casting vote on some issues. And I don't see a republic or a parliament working, to be honest. Steve block Talk 19:01, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

My prediction, for whatever it may be worth, is that the future of Wikipedia holds at least two things which are essentially anathema to the current philosophies of Wikipedia:

• Some sort of policymaking committee.
• Increased restrictions on the "anybody" portion of "The encyclopedia that anybody can edit."

I consider the first to be an inevitable consequence of the fact that there are many people who come to Wikipedia, spend a very brief amount of time editing actual articles, and then immerse themselves deeply into the policy aspects of Wikipedia, never to surface again. They are more interested in pursuing some vision of online social justice than they are of actually creating an encyclopedia.

I consider the second to be an inevitable consequence of the fact that the OTRS folks and the OFFICE folks will find themselves snowed under by complaints as word gets out that, hey, you can bitch at the guys who run Wikipedia about your article, and they'll jump through hoops for you.

It may not happen this year, or the next, or even the next. But I predict that it will happen, unless a substantially new and innovative policy creation and enforcement mechanism is crafted between now and then.

All the best,

?xtreme Unction

04:19, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I've certainly begun to ponder whether we should just make all pages semi-protected, if only to make welcome messages and warnings and the like more easily targeted. But that's a big step and I think it's already boiling on the back burner, personally. The policy council, um. Yes, I think it may well happen, but I think I'd need persuading on it. To my mind once you start creating committees, you start seeing them detach and you start bringing in a divide. Maybe on divisive, binary issues we just need to have a big centralised discussion and get a crat in to call consensus after a time limit. Anyone not willing to move on a position is discounted as not working towards consensus. Who knows. It used to be we'd all agree on what we wanted, and work from there. Now we all disagree on what we don't work, and never seem to meet in the middle. Steve block Talk 09:26, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

[Deindent] Well, don't mistake my predictions as endorsement. The policy-making committee idea has several profound failure modes, depending on how it is constructed and populated, and (tortured syntax ahoy, Cap'n!) by whom it is populated with. If it's a strictly back-channel thing, as was being sorta semi-worked on by Kelly Martin and others, that would be bad. If it was populated by a process similar to ArbCom...well, it would still probably be bad, but not quite as bad.

I am generally less opposed to increased restrictions on who can edit, mainly because I spent 10 years enforcing online policy for a large ISP. And online policy enforcement has certain parallels with online security. The first rule of online security is "No system is 100% secure as long as it has an active network connection to another computer." Breaking the security of a computer system is a function of three things: Time, Money, and Motivation. Given the right amount of these three things, any system can be compromised. Thus, the purpose of network security is not to eliminate the chance of intrusion, but rather to make the cost of those three things sufficiently expensive that casual abuse is discouraged.

Likewise, the abuse we see on a daily basis here in Wikipedia is a function of Time, Money, and Motivation. And right now we have very minimal brakes on that behavior, such that casual abuse is rampant. I think the first (certainly the most obvious) restriction which will be added will be requiring registration to edit Wikipedia, followed in short order by requring a valid email address during registration. This will not eliminate the casual abuse, but will sharply decrease it to a more manageable level.

The only 100% perfect solution I can see is, of course, to place me in charge of all policy-making and policy-enforcement decisions. But since neither Jimbo nor the Foundation have the vision to make such a radical change, I'm afraid we'll all be stuck with a less-optimal procedures.  ;-)

All the best,
?xtreme Unction
14:36, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

No no, I should be the Great Dictator! Isn't it obvious? I'm one of those editors who disappeared into the policy swamp shortly after arrival; it's really all I'm good for, aside from the occasional pretty picture.

I have some really radical ideas for reform; as usual, I take a little from every side and whip it together. I really don't see the point of airing them, though, before the entire community. No doubt they're completely unacceptable as I would write them initially; they need to be worked on before showing to a wider audience. You need to keep in mind that a large bulk of editors are hostile to anything they see (shoot first); more are hostile to anything new (good enough for grandad); still more hostile to anything they haven't peed on (that's the smith's dog i smell), and others hostile to anything that alters long-standing policy (defenders of the faith).

Any proposal that goes deep enough to address the failure of consensus will, if aired in a raw state, be shredded and the creator burnt at the stake. No, we need a quieter place to work this up. John Reid 02:32, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Pretty picture

Hi Radiant, I thought you'd like this: http://www.flickr.com/photos/mag3737/296851106/in/photostream/ Cheers! Kla'quot 09:55, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, it's non-commercial only. You get to look but not touch. :) Kla'quot 09:50, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Overcategorization

Great work on the page. I've added a mini proposal to go with it at Wikipedia talk:Categories for discussion.

I've also been thinking about some general purpose templates for categories that might help in their management. I hate the {{catdiffuse}} template, and would like some that are much more user friendly, not blatantly self-referential and move us towards the category structure discussed at Wikipedia:Category intersection. I'm not sure of all the details, so I wanted to bounce the idea off you before I do anything.

The basic idea is to label categories so that people understand the different ways we use categories. The language would be written for the users of wikipedia to help explain the use of the category, while at the same time it would indirectly help editors know how the category should be populated. There would be templates for each of the following:

• Topic Categories -- Topic categories are high level categories containing both articles and subcategories. Typically, these do not contain any articles about specific instances of the topic. An example of this type of category is Category:Film
• Index Categories -- These are the "Primary" category talked about at WP:CI. An index category contains all the articles that are members of a class of articles defined by a topic. It is a master index of the topic. All members of one of these "X" categories are an "X". An example of this type is Category:Film directors (though it is not currently populated). The template for this type of category might have a link to the topic article for the category and explain how subcategories might be helpful.
• Subcategories Subcategories are secondary index categories, a more specific means of classifying articles. Articles put in subcategories would also be put in the index categories that are their parents. The template would have a link to the parent category.
• Navigation categories These categories only contain subcategories and are intended to help people navigate through the category structure. An example of this is Category:People by nationality and occupation
• Intersection categories The intersection of two (or perhaps three) primary categories. The articles placed in these categories should also be in the primary categories. The template would have links to the primary categories.
• Subject categories These are low level categories mainly containing articles that are related to a topic. Typically, they are eponymous categories and not part of any larger taxonomy. An example of this is Category:George W. Bush.

What do you think? -- Samuel Wantman 08:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps this thread should be moved to Wikipedia talk:Overcategorization, but I tend to agree with the sentiment expressed at Wikipedia talk:Categorization#Categories getting out of hand. As currently implemented categories have no formal meaning and no formal structure (other than directed graph), which I think means any attempt to attribute meaning to categories is ultimately doomed. I suspect there's not much point in doing anything along these lines until we have something like semantic mediawiki. -- Rick Block (talk) 18:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Rick, thanks for commenting. Yes as currently implemented categories do not have a formal meaning and a formal structure. That is why I'm trying to give them more structure. The classes I came up with are based on the structure that most categories seem to have, and by putting these labels on categories we would be giving categories more structure in a wiki-like way. Categories seem to be at a point that they will either degrade into meaninglessness or take form. I'm not quite ready to give up on them yet. -- Samuel Wantman 20:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Samuel's types of categories outlined above. These are exactly the sort of categories I've been seeing develop. I've always tried to add a few lines explaining a category to the editors using it, and directing them to more appropriate categories if needed, and directing readers to the correct place as well. See what I did at Category:Tsunamis and Category:Tsunami. Carcharoth 00:41, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Ddcc has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Smile to others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message. Happy editing!

Thanks

Just wanted to say thanks for taking the time to participate in the whole naming discussion debacle. I'm sorry you had to put up with all that, it is a bit ridiculous when someone asks for an outside opinion and then attacks it when it doesn't agree with theirs. Cheers. --Milo H Minderbinder 23:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Guideline?

I'm glad you like the Wikipedia:Category structure idea. I'm not sure it needs to be a "proposal". I think we can just start doing it: make templates, and start tagging categories. If it is a good idea people will join in. If not, they'll complain. The Wikipedia page should explain what it is about, rather than have discussion that makes it seem like something needs to be decided. I did pretty much the same thing when I created Wikipedia:Categorization. It has been around for over a year, and people regularly put the templates on categories.

So, rather than discuss this as a proposal, let's just start collaboratively creating templates and working on the Wikipedia page that people will get to when they click on the "category structure" link that all the templates will have. Once it is all ready, we can then start tagging. Anyone who wants can join in and help. If it becomes widely adopted and eventually considered a requirement of any new category, we'll lable it as a guideline.

I'll be able to work on it starting Dec 7. Take care. -- Samuel Wantman 22:41, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

WP:TROUT

What is this? There's no explanitory text at all, you seem to have cited it as a guideline on the Villiage Pump... it's just a picture of a fish that says "Whack!" It seems to be a cross between slapstick humor, a personal attack, and sarcasam. For some odd reason it vaguely reminds me of the Wikicouch that was briefly floting around. Just... what is it? ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)} 17:01, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I think he was just making a joke, saying you should remind them of size guidelines, summary guidelines, and possibly smack them with a trout. It reminded me of the couch as well, though I doubt anyone is going to be held in contempt of WP:TROUT anytime soon.--tjstrf talk 17:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Ok, thank you for my laugh of the day. Clicked the link showing on your edit summary, and just laughed and laughed : ) - jc37 17:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Starry Night

It was a very pleasant and encouraging surprise for me to discover a barnstar after clicking on the "new message" link. Thank you, i appreciate it a lot. =D --`/aksha 11:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

MONGO

I'd dig out the Barnstar of Diligence code but I think we're probably above that sort of crap by now. This is an exceptional piece of work, and I sincerely hope it has the desired effect. Guy (Help!) 00:17, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Thanks. Tragic romance 19:18, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

thanks for your comments

Thanks for your comments radiant. Sorry to bother you. Best wishes, Travb (talk) 16:12, 21 December 2006 (UTC)

Thanks

Just saying thanks for your input on the various adventure-related afds, it has been reasoned and non-partisan. --Amaccormack 10:49, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Moondance magazine AFD-Revision Talk

Hi Radiant! Just added many external links to University sites that have this magazine in their cirriculum (most are Women's Studies Depts). You can link over to review this at Moondance magazine. All thanks for your continued help. --Lysanzia 10:20, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

Category intersection (again)

I'm still wondering about how to make WP:CI feasible. So I'm wondering about having a composite system combining something like what we do now with dynamically created category intersections.

The impediment discussed was that large categories intersected with other large categories could likely cause server load problems. So perhaps these problematic category intersections could be flagged so that the intersection is not available. Here's how I see this working:

I'm assuming that we institute one of the CI options that do in fact create an intersection space.

• Someone requests an intersection that causes too much server drain (the developers can decide what that level is, and how to measure it). Let's say for example, that the threshold is one second of server time.

• When the threashold is reached, the server creates a flag for the intersection on the appropriate page in intersection space.

• Any time that intersection is requested again, users will get a message that the intersection is not available because it requires too much server time.

• Each time the intersection is requested, a counter (which could also be the flag) would keep track of how many times the intersection is requested.

• When there is extra server capacity, flagged intersections could undertaken again, with priority given to the ones with the most requests. The intersection page would then be replaced with a wiki-markup list for the created intersection. These saved lists would not require any server time the next time they are requested. There could be a note as part of it that explains that the page may not be up to date.

• Every time the saved list is recreated the counter would be reset. Statistics for each page, like a running total number of requests, or average requests per day could also be kept. These could be used for alternate methods of determining which intersections should be recreated.

• Empty intersections could also be flagged, and a special page created to view a list of these empty intersection pages. Admins could flag any that are meaningless, so that the servers would no longer attempt to create new intersections, and they would be displayed as being empty.

What do you think? -- Samuel Wantman 09:03, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Sam invited me to comment as well. I think the technical feasibility of this hinges on the ability of an intersection query to the database to either be predicted as one that might take too long or to be interrupted after the resource threshold has been reached. I think the former might be somewhat easier than the latter (I'm not a MySQL user, but from what poking around I've done I don't think there's a way to either interrupt a query or give a query a lower priority than other queries). Something simple like if the size of any category involved in the intersection query is larger than X (5000?) might suffice. The only problem with a size limit is that it would presumably add a size query (for each cat involved) to the processing involved in doing an intersection. The rest of this sounds kind of complicated and I suspect would require a fair amount of work to implement, and doesn't address the issue of locking the DB while the intersection query runs (there's really never a good time to do this).

An alternate approach might be to dedicate some number of "intersection servers" in the server cluster and give them read-only access to the category database. I don't know if MySQL supports a distributed server arrangement in this fashion (I suspect probably not), but if it did then the intersection queries could be shoved off to these servers making these queries not interfere with other uses of the database (sort of like the tooserver approach). Given that toolserver runs off a copy, I suspect this isn't actually feasible.

Yet another approach might be to implement two different algorithms for intersection, and pick which one based on the sizes of the categories involved. The first one (for use where all the categories are reasonably small) would run the obvious intersection query using SQL (like Radiant implemented some time ago). The second one would first run an SQL intersection of all "small" categories in the query and, if there is a non-null result, then do an intersection outside the database (in one of the Apaches) for the larger categories by reading a reasonable number of entries at a time (500?) per category. From the DB's perspective this would be the same as someone listing the contents of the larger categories, rapidly hitting "next 200" over and over. Doing this avoids the potential DB lockup that a very large query might entail, which I think is the actual problem that has to be solved (there are enough Apaches so that if one is busy for a while, even 10 seconds, it's not a site-wide disaster). -- Rick Block (talk) 19:44, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

It seems that the server load problem will only be in cases where a large category intersects another large category. If a small one is part of the intersection, then only the members of the smallest category need to be looked at. Likewise, in cases of more than 2 categories being intersected, only the intersection of the smallest two categories need to be looked at.

Building on what Rick suggests, there seem to be several strategies for reducing server load:

1. Interrupt long queries if this is possible.
2. Dedicate a server or servers just for the purpose of generating intersections if this is possible
3. Use a prediction strategy based on the size of the smallest category used in an intersection.
4. Use a prediction strategy based on processing the previous intersection request. Allow every intersection to be processed the first time it is requested, but keep track of how long it takes. Allow it to be re-processed based on that speed and other factors like how long it has been since it was last requested and how many requests there are for the category, and how many articles resulted. This way time consuming intersections that result in few or no results would be run very infrequently, and those that are quick can be kept current.
5. Recycle popular intersections. These could be saved and not rerun until a certain amount of time has passed.
6. Create special pages with lists of intersections that take the longest or that have null results, and flag them as meaningless.

Are there any other possibilities? -- Samuel Wantman 00:50, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

In the current site server architecture, the database is the most time critical element (see m:Wikimedia servers). I believe the whole issue boils down to making sure there are never any requests that take a significant amount of processing time (in the database) to complete. Without doing some benchmarking, I'm not sure we can come up with a reasonable answer. It might be that a small cat intersected with a large cat takes time proportional to only the size of the small cat, but I suspect it may actually take time proportional to the union of the sizes of all the cats involved. Like I say, I don't think MySQL has an interrupt mechanism, and I'd be surprised if it supports multiple servers in an active/active cluster (although I'm not sure what DB2-DB4 in the diagram at m:Wikimedia servers actually do). MySQL does apparently support limiting the search result (like the 200 results at a time in the current category listing code). The problem is this is not useful as a limiter for an intersection (since if there's no result you've already done all the work). So, I think #1 and #2 are not technically feasible with MySQL and the rest basically optimize when or how many times we run a long query. If the rule is we can't ever run a long query (and I suspect this would be the rule), I think we have to come up with something else. I don't know if User:Tim Starling has commented on this (he never responded to User_talk:Tim_Starling#category intersections), but he's the right guy. -- Rick Block (talk) 02:26, 31 December 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure we have to say "never"? Could we get by if these long processes happen "once" and then are flagged to never happen again? It seems that with all the server power now available, this might not be so terrible. Also, it seems that if the union of the categories are determining speed than the routine to find the intersections needs to be rewritten. It might be that there could be different algorithms for different size combinations. If there are more than 2 categories and most of them are small, it would make sense to find the intersections of the small ones first. Then, if there is a small number of articles that result, you could just check to see if they are in the large category. This could be very fast, and intuition makes me think it would be much, much faster than the situation when you have the intersection of the same number of categories, each roughly equal in size and the total number of articles in the union of the categories being the same as before. --Samuel Wantman 22:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

Rick, it's been nice chatting about this. I'm still wondering what Radiant! thinks? Radiant? -- Samuel Wantman 22:54, 1 January 2007 (UTC)

• Hi there! Happy new year and such! This catting is tricky business... I think it's reasonable to assume that anything that requires major changes to the database setup is Not Going To Happen. I've talked to Brion on this in the past, and the performance hit occurs for an intersection of two categories that (1) are large, and (2) have no common members. It is easy to see that intersecting two 1000-member categories requires a million comparisons. Aside from potential overusage by readers in general, this is a rather obvious DOS attack. I think the two obvious solutions are (1) keeping track of "huge" queries and don't perform them more than once a month, or (2) a priori blacklist all categories over a certain size. It may also help to list the smallest category first, although I believe MySQL can make that decision by itself. I'm quite capable of coding all of the above if need be, but I'd have to talk with Brion on IRC about feasibility; without his input, we don't really know what to aim at. >Radiant< 13:00, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Not an insignificant quibble, but I think an intersection involving two 1000-member categories should only take a worst case of 2000 comparisons (assuming the indices are sorted). Tim is really the database guy, not Brion, so I think it might be better to talk to him. I have a pretty strong hunch that these SQL queries might take 10s of seconds, which I think means we can't ever do them (even once a month). Rather than do our own intersection code outside the database, maybe we could parse a single intersection request into multiple requests (like select a* from both, then intersect those, select b*, intersect those, ...). The trick would be to come up with some algorithm that basically ensures we're never doing a query that will take a long time. -- Rick Block (talk) 14:45, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm updating the list of different approaches that can be employed, and the more we think about this, the more we'll come up with:

1. Blacklist
   • Based on predictive analysis (some intersections may never be run)
     • Size of smallest category
     • Relative size of medium to large categories
   • Based on past results (some intersections may only be run once)
     • Limit frequency of updates
     • Prohibit updates
   • Manually maintained blacklist based on administrator flagging
2. Abort intersections
   • Abort time consuming database calls (likely not possible)
   • Abort multi-step algorithms mid-process
3. Use analysis to choose alogorithms
   • Intersect category subsets
   • Intersect smallest categories first
4. Restrict intersections to specific hardware
   • Dedicated servers (may not be possible)
   • Use database copies to perform frequently requested slow intersections off-line (eg "American Actors" might be banned, but an intersection could be regularly performed on an off-line copy of he data base)

--Samuel Wantman 20:32, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Smile

La gloria è a dio has smiled at you! Smiles promote WikiLove and hopefully this one has made your day better. Spread the WikiLove by smiling to someone else, whether it be someone you have had disagreements with in the past or a good friend. Happy editing!
Smile at others by adding {{subst:smile}}, {{subst:smile2}} or {{subst:smile3}} to their talk page with a friendly message.

Category intersection (yet again)

I think we may have overlooked a very simple way to limit problematic intersections. If we limit intersection requests to the checkbox interface Rick and I designed for articles, then it will be impossible to have an empty intersection set, and very unlikely that we will have two huge categories intersecting to create a tiny intersection set. The big category combinations will probably be something like "American people" intersected with "Film actors". In cases like this there is a very large overlap. Since 200 American film actors should result fairly quickly, perhaps this would not be a problem. These popular intersections (ones that we already have categories for) should probably be saved and only updated periodically.

This limitation would mean that there would only be one way to get to intersection space. I'm not sure if and how you could limit someone from typing in a URL for the intersection. It could be that we start out using your system of having a special page for implementing this. Someone might gum up the works by miscategorizing an article on purpose just to make things slow down, but this can probably be policed or spotted by some of the other methods we've talked about. The worst cases we've been worrying about shoud be extremely rare events. -- Samuel Wantman 10:51, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Deletion Policy

Me? Edit so much as a word of deletion policy? Don't be silly. I'd be run up the nearest tree with my neck in a noose, sweet Radiant. No...while I do feel that there is a lot unclear, and even wrong with the policies, I have a firm conviction not to touch them myself until I've worked out exactly what my wording changes would mean. After watching people turn DDV into a near trainwreck, and since recent events have frayed my patience and sense of decorum, I have hesitated to do anything like that.

hugs It does mean a lot to know you think I could do such a thing, and I thank you for asking me. I'd normally be happy to write up things but realistically, the problem isn't the deletion policy so much as the content that gets submitted that straddles the lines, and I don't want to get jiggy with that. --Elaragirl^Talk|Count 18:22, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

MOTD ANI thread

Thanks for reminding me about that; as you're aware, it's been speedily de-hierarchified (yes, that's a word...). Oh, and congrats on your now-guideline regarding polling - it is a perfect example of how discussing issues at length in a civil and intelligent manner proves fruitful to all involved. Cheers, Daniel.Bryant ^{[ T · C ]} 11:59, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

User:PJHaseldine

Thanks for your intervention. --Dweller 13:02, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

Hair

[1] Do you have a source for that? Not because I don't believe you but because this is such a wacky subject that I want to read more about it :) >Radiant< 09:16, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

In book form around here, yes. I'll have to do some searching online for it though.

It's rather amazing how subjectively rulership has been given/taken/selected/etc. Hair colour and eye colour are some of the more obvious ones. Then there's height, of course. (And don't laugh - foot size.) How about if your skin is so pale that you can see the blue of your veins? We won't even go into birthmarks... Oh, and just as all of these things could be signs of rulership or being "special" in a positive way, depending on the culture, they could be seen as signs of being "special" in a negative way. Monty Python's Quest for the Holy Grail wasn't that far off in the witch determination scene...

And of course this doesn't take into account actions. Either events that coincided with some event in the person's life (meteor shower, solar eclipse, locust attack, whatever), or the tried and true King of the mountain, Last man standing, Most ruthless warrior. Perhaps they performed some "special" task or trial, or won a contest.

And of course one of the ways into rulership was to marry into it, so all of these could be a requirement for the marrying of so-n-so's daughter. Or the daughter was a part of the "prize" for becoming the ruler. (Any surprise that so many Helen-of-Troy/Rapunzel-esque events happened? : )

I have a feeling quite a bit of what I just posted above could be wiki-linked : ) - I'll see about that while I'm doing the search later (I just signed in, so I'll probably be distracted by my watch list for a bit : ) - jc37 10:46, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Argumentum ad Radiantem

ROFLMAO : ) - jc37 13:20, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not great on Latin grammar, but argumentum ad infinitum is spelt -um, so should Wikipedia:Argumentum ad Radiantem be spelt -em or -um? :-) (a concerned pedant) Carcharoth 13:36, 12 January 2007 (UTC)

?

Hello, Radiant!! May I please copy the idea of a quilt for my userpage? Just thought I'd ask. Kamope · talk · contributions 22:36, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Big honkin' RFD nomination

Just wanted to drop you a note in appreciation of your doing the work behind this. My vote's already up, but I wanted to give you a personal note of encouragement for the nomination itself. I understand (and appreciate) how much scut work goes into stuff like that; it's worth doing, but it's always a pain, and I figure people need whatever encouragement they can get to do it regardless. So: thanks for doing the work. Just having eyes on some of this stuff is good. Gavia immer (u|t) 19:48, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Policy Guideline Essay

Oh geeze. After all this time, I finally checked history, and these 3 templates were set up by Stevertigo, Netoholic, and yourself weren't they?

Now I understand a bit more about why they work the way they do, and why I have had these interactions with you.

Hmmm, I've never really understood the system. Since you're actually one of the inventors, could you maybe lay out the logic to me, step by step, just once more?

There's also artifacts like where "Speedy Deletion" is an untagged page, while some (admittedly well known) category system to help with that is marked as "policy". Logic would sill have it be vice versa, wouldn't it? How did that happen?

Thank you for your patience :-) --Kim Bruning 20:02, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Crash Crash

It looks like we're both trying to clean up policy and guidelines and essays and howto and other. (Or, like I like to put it: "our guidelines"), but are taking mutually exclusive approaches to the problem. We need to synchronise our efforts somehow. Can we talk someplace? I'm available on skype, irc, and several different IM networks. And/or please email me. --Kim Bruning 17:44, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Would appreciate your comment

Regarding [2]. Thanks. Hipocrite - «Talk» 18:37, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Not every page needs a tag

Hello, Radiant! I don't mind Wikipedia:Not every page needs a tag but what do you meen by the answer is "mu"? Kamope · talk · contributions 11:49, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

;) Don't we have a tag for pages with too many tags? --Doc^g 12:09, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

I know what we need:

This Wikipedia article is fine the way it is and does not need a tag. Please do not add a template to it. (This notice will categorise any page that displays it in Category:Pages tagged so that they won't be tagged)

 :) Grutness...wha? 12:26, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

WP:STALK

Thanks for the reply - I am moving forward with the complaint so I appreciate getting at least some response. The editor in question has an advocate and I've shared the matter with him as well. I'll also take your suggestion to post to AN. These COI issues seem to be sprouting up faster and faster so it's worthwhile getting community-wide consensus on acceptable procedure. Cheers, -Will Beback · † · 12:18, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Template:Ceci n'est pas un template

<Grin>. I could have used that not 5 minutes ago! --Kim Bruning 13:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Happy Valentines Day!

I wish you and your family have a wonderful Valentines Day!

Kamope · talk · contributions 23:25, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Blogs as sources

You may wish to review WP:RS. Hipocrite - «Talk» 14:57, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

RfM

User talk:Hipocrite/kibitzing. Hipocrite - «Talk» 16:44, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

What's so bad about an essay?

the other half of this discussion is here.

I'd really like to know why you don't want Per and SNOW classified as essays. I don't see what's so offensive about being an essay. --Random832(tc) 16:35, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

I think that if a "description of how things do work" includes a value judgement as to whether that state of affairs ought to continue, that makes it an essay. Just because it's the majority opinion (even if it is) doesn't mean it's not an opinion. By calling those who disagree with the use of "per" for non-policies "incorrect" you are introducing your POV in Per. By characterizing itself as an extension of policy (I've removed language to that effect), WP:SNOW is (was) inherently POV. (other parts of it still need to be reworded, and possibly cannot be called "clause", if it's not an essay.) --Random832(tc) 17:25, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Merger of Companies & Organizations

Thanks for the support, but I feel a bit uncomfortable taking significant unilateral action on such a prominent page. Since I have contacted so many peole asking for their votes, I am somewhat obligated to give them a chance to express their opinions. If you vote for the merger and no one else votes over the next few days, then I will feel comfortable making the change.

Sincerely,

Kevin --Kevin Murray 18:24, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I do agree with you all down the line, but last time I made changes to Comp & Corp it was reverted for not dicusssing, so I have become timid. Regardless, you seem to support the merge, so why not add your vote/opinion etc. so I can make the merge with support. --Kevin Murray 15:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Reply

The thing about that is that The Simpsons has 400 episodes, 50+ characters who have been episode centic, 100 more secondary or minor characters and a list like that would get cluttered very quickly. Using categories gets rid of the clutter, and we're not goin g to make them for every character, just the ones with 15+ episodes. -- Scorpion 15:27, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

But there aren't twenty categories. There is one existing Simpsons episode category. Why are you so against these categories? What policies are being broken? -- Scorpion 15:42, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

There is a bit of a difference between 30 letters at the very bottom of a page and a 5000+ letter list. Lists clutter up articles, categories do not. -- Scorpion 15:52, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see why you had to go and nominate the Homer category for cfd. Why not wait until the Burns one is done. I also fail to see why categories are a bad idea. They are not, I have been told by hundreds of users and admins that lists are discouraged and they are cruft. -- Scorpion 16:31, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

What you are telling me goes against everything I have ever been told. And, instead of making a cruftish list, why not just use categories? You can provide an easy link from the character page and they aren't that hard to maintain. -- Scorpion 16:50, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm still curious as to why a list is more preferable. Lists can become amazingly cluttered in short periods of time. Yes, categories would be hard to keep track of, but I think it would be manageable. And, if an article is ever a GAC or FAC and it has a list, it will most likely fail. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Scorpion0422 (talk • contribs) 16:58, 2 February 2007 (UTC).

Yes, I did know that (obviously you didn't read my profile). How can you possibly say that a mass list of every single character that has ever featured in an episode is possible than a small single character list? And, since said lists are a waste of space and hard to maintain, a category is a natural option. It's not overcategorization because there is only 1 existing category, it's not overlapping because we're just going to include central episodes. What is the big deal? -- Scorpion 17:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Simpsons characters

Hello, I saw you opposed the creation of Categories about what episodes feature specific Simpsons characters. I created the Mr Burns category, but personally favor its deletion. My motivation for creating it was to save the information contained in character articles that listed what episodes they star in. The way the episodes are now listed in the Mr. Burns article is how it used to be for most characters, until Scorpion conducted a massive "slash and burn" campaign, on what appears to be another manufactured consensus based on brief discussion among a half dozen members of the Simpsons WikiProject. Why six people can decide for the Wikipedia community and the world who reads it what is/isn't so-called "cruft" is beyond me. Scorpion removed the information that you see in the Mr Burns articles (re: What episodes he starred in) from at least a dozen articles, if not more. I am going to be doing damage control now and restoring the information as time allows me. If you would like to come over to the Simpsons Wikiproject page and help shape the project, it would be a good idea. Personally, I find the practices of the majority of the editors there to favor sweeping, massive and indiscriminate deletion of content with little or no discussion prior to it. It seems common for many to favor tearing down articles over building their content and consensus about what should be done with them. I would be interested to hear your thoughts on this matter. --takethemud 19:20, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Proposed Wikipedia talk:Notability (news)

On the Wikipedia talk page for Wikipedia:Notability you expressed some opinions about whether things covered by news media should be entitled to Wikipedia articles for having met the criteria of multiple coverage in reliable independent sources I have created a draft of a proposed guideline Wikipedia talk:Notability (news) looking at the question of whether "newsworty" equals "encyclopedic." Your input is welcome. Thanks. And my apology for incorrectly stating you had done the redirect on the WP:CHURCH proposal. Edison 01:11, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

!

Your quilt is complete! Kamope · talk · contributions 01:30, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

• No it's not :) >Radiant< 14:14, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

My RfA

Hi Radiant!,

Thanks for participating in my recent RfA. Even though it was ultimately successful (at 54-13-11), I value all of the feedback and have already benefited from the community's suggestions. Hope to see you around. - Gilliam 21:54, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

user:MsHyde

I noticed that this new editor was prod-ing quite a few articles on her first day at WP. Another editor warned her that this was inappropriate and I backed up the comment. However, she continued. I looked at the prod standards and don't see a specific rule banning new users from using that tag, but it does seem inappropriate. A few of the articles met notability and verifiability, a couple should have gone to AfD and on others she was right. Additionally she is putting does not cite sources tags where the articles have sufficient references. The whole thing seems a bit odd.

--Kevin Murray 04:56, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

user:Agent 86

See 86's talk page for a summary of his issues at Organizations and companies which I put together yesterday, in hopes we could work together to solve--Kevin Murray 10:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

CFD Motorcyclists

Sorry it's unclear to me from the debate page whether both categories motorcyclists and fictional motorcyclists were deleted or just category:motorcyclists. Brianhe 17:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Your CFD closing

Hello, I noticed that you place the top of your CFD closings above the section header for that individual discussion, rather than below. While this visually includes the header within the box for that CFD, it causes the top of the closure notice to be included within the previous entry's section. See for example this CFD, where if you try to edit the Supermodels CFD at the top, your Indian Kids Actors closure will show up in that section, which is at least a problem when some of the CFDs on a log are still open. Just wanted to point that out to you; I didn't know if you had a reason for doing it the way you do. Cheers, Postdlf 20:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Miscellany for deletion/Portal:Isle of Man

Your closing of this discussion is certainly an interesting one, or perhaps, as Sir Humphrey would have said, a courageous one. The Isle of Man is NOT part of the UK and the people who live there are very proud of that fact I believe. Wikispace is also not appropriate. I suggest that the only possible closure should have been a "no consensus" keep. One problem with your proposed action is that it can not really be appealed at Deletion Review, as it would have been merged or moved not deleted. I have removed the redlink boxes which was one reason for deletion given in the debate and made one of them a brief sub-article to encourage people to improve I of M articles. Living in Australia I am in no position to do much more. I have never even been to the Isle of Man, although I have seen it often enough from the Lake District hills. My parents had their honeymoon there over 70 years ago. There are a few I of M editors. I have come across some working on Scouting on the Isle of Man. Maybe people will get more interested. --Bduke 21:42, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I have already fixed up the redlinks. I deleted all but one and made that one a brief box. Portals do not all have to have the same components. I think it is adequate to exist for now. --Bduke 10:14, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

cat American conservatives, American constitutionalists

Hey Radiant! When you closed the nomination on American conservatives, I see that American constitutionalists also got deleted; now, in the supercat American people by political orientation, there are lots of "State X constitutionalists". I thought that the sense was to take "American constitutionalists" out of "American conservatives" which was to be deleted, and put "American constitutionalists" in "American people by political orientation". It doesn't make a lot of sense to have the constitutionalists categories all still existing, but just by state. ??? Did I misunderstand the discussion? --lquilter 05:04, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Question

In regards to [3], what dispute is going on here? As a highways editor, I do not recall anything of this nature. --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 05:56, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

As a participant in the Arbitration case, I recall that the dispute was about the naming of highways articles, rather than the notability of highways articles. Would you mind a) fixing the edit and b)clarifying your intentions at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Minnesota_State_Highway_127? --Rschen7754 (talk - contribs) 23:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

re:Quilt

I won't add anything more to your quilt. ;) Kamope · talk · contributions 13:16, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

DRV needing a close

There is an open deletion review on Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2007 February 2 that is ripe for closure. The regular closer participated heavily in the discussion, so tagged me to close. I also participated, so... Looking, you are the first regular DRV participant I find that is both an admin and hasn't participated in the discussion. So, I drop the task on you. GRBerry 13:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Category:Godzilla heroes

The above category was included in the CfM nom for Godzilla villains --> Godzilla characters. I may not have made that clear enough in the nomination. Otto4711 14:22, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

• Please advise if the Godzilla heroes category will be merged as part of the original nomination or if it has to be relisted or what. Thanks. Otto4711 19:31, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

Kazakh categories

Sorry I missed the nom, but noticed the moves once they happened. I think that moving Category:Kazakh culture and Category:Kazakh music to their "Kazakhstani" variants was a very bad idea (though of course in good faith). I agree that the others in that nom were rightfully moved, since media and albums are now coming out of Kazakhstan, and are thus Kazakhstani. (By the way, I'm a big proponent of making the "akh/akhstani" distinction, and I'm glad other folks on WP are paying attention to this too.)

The difference between the names is: "Kazakhstani" are things which are from the modern nation (or SSR) of Kazakhstan. "Kazakh" are things which are ethnically, culturally, or linguistically Kazakh. Thus Category:Kazakh culture needs to be kept distinct from Category:Kazakhstani culture. Articles like Kazakh cuisine, Tubeteika, etc are not Kazakhstani culture, but Kazakh. Articles like Anthem of the Republic of Kazakhstan, Flag of Kazakhstan, etc are probably Kazakhstani culture rather than Kazakh culture. Similar things can be said about Category:Kazakh music and Category:Kazakhstani music. In particular Dombra and Kobyz should not be called Kazakhstani as they far predate the Republic (independent or SSR) of Kazakhstan.

I'm sorry I didn't participate in the CFD- like I said I didn't notice it until now. I'd be happy to help filter out which article belongs where, but I'm not sure on the procedure for erasing the CFD notice from e.g. Category:Kazakh culture. Staecker 18:24, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Deletion Review

An editor has asked for a deletion review of Template:HistSource. Since you closed the deletion discussion for this article or speedy-deleted it, you might want to participate in the deletion review. Regards. JASpencer 21:29, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

RfA

Will you nominate me in a month or so from now?? Any advice is appreciated at User:SunStar Net/RfA Coaching. --sunstar net^talk 23:36, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Clarify

I'm not sure what this means... "shcut tends to give the impression that looking at contrib logs is wrong." Could you clarify? Navou ^banter / _{review me} 17:01, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

"Country-related" CfD

Hi Radiant,

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 February 9#Country-related

Like Cloachland, I'm not exactly sure what you have in mind here; could you clarify / give a couple of examples...?  Thanks, David Kernow (talk) 05:36, 10 February 2007 (UTC)

It was a procedural nom, I found this as part of an earlier CFD I closed.

Thanks for your message; I'm not involved in that corner of Wikipedia, but was intrigued by the nomination. Best wishes, David (talk) 05:50, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

finished!

some other editor added a spot to your quilt - i think it is filled up. Great job!

ps: I contributed a small earth and a large God!--GordonWatts 22:19, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Barnstar

		The Surreal Barnstar
		Radiant!, I award you the Surreal Barnstar for making Wikipedia a radiant place. Keep it up! Kamope·?·! Sign! 11:45, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Pas une pipe

Pretty sure. It's tagged "fair use", and its being a fair use image is the reason someone removed it from Written language a few months back. —Angr 12:15, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Trezz bean. —Angr 12:57, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Noticed.

I noticed. I will comment after it is accepted or rejected by the committee. Hipocrite - «Talk» 12:19, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Redirects

Thanks for the input. When you fixed the problem from my redirect, did you just blank the original page, or delete it and start a new page? Thanks! --Kevin Murray 21:39, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)

Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)

It has been proposed that the following criteria be removed from this guideline: 1. The commercial organization is listed on ranking indices of important companies produced by well-known and independent publications.3 2. The commercial organization's share price is used to calculate one or more of the major managed stock market indices.4 Note this is not the same as simply being listed on a stock market. Nor is it the same as being included in an index that comprises the entire market. The broader or the more specialized the index, the less notability it establishes for the company.

We are close to evaluating consensus, please join with us in the discussion. --Kevin Murray 04:48, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Category deleted without clear explanation

Hi Radiant, I note from Wp:cfd#Category:Open_air_preachers that Category:Open air preachers has been deleted with only an explanation than it was the same as Preachers. How is it the same? I agree that it was right to delete Preachers, because that is a vast and general category. However, while most preachers preach only or mainly indoors, where some people may come in and hear them, there is a smaller but strong historical tradition of taking the message out into the streets and public places. I thought the intended significance for the new category was clearly explained and distinguished on the category page. If I had called it Open air evangelists as a sub-category of Evangelists, would it have been permitted to remain? (Not that I prefer that word; Preachers includes those with a mainly moral message as well as those with a gospel message.)

I would also like to discuss the lack of communication with the person who created the page (me). (i) The page was deleted within an hour, with no opportunity for me to debate it. (ii) You wrote "The result of the debate was delete, recreation", which I found very cryptic - at first I thought it implied permission to recreate the category. In deleting the work of my lunch-hour without even leaving an explanation on my talk page, were you assuming bad faith on my part? Fayenatic london 07:57, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, apology accepted! However, I'm unconvinced by your irony re John the Baptist: "it's far more important that he's a prophet for several faiths, and when he was born, and when/how he died, than that he gave a mass outdoors". For one thing, what he (is believed to have) said should rank above when he was born/died; but after that, is his method not significant? In terms of sheer audience numbers, and their response, he was among the most successful preachers in history! Actually, he's an exception, since he lived in the desert and the people had to go to him. However, going out to the people was a significant characteristic of the ministries of the others who initially populated the category: Jonah, Jesus, Savonarola, Wesley, Whitfield, the Lollards...

Perhaps you didn't have time to look at the category page before deleting it. The category was restricted to those religious teachers who habitually or over a sustained period preached outside formal venues. So, it's not for a bishop who takes an open air mass, nor an evangelist whose organisation hires a stadium, nor a rabbi/guru using a roofless venue such as temple courts.

Still no? Fayenatic london 14:41, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to reply again, Radiant. OK, I'll take that as an end of the category discussion. Your views are probably more objective than mine. Maybe I'll draft a "History of" article one day, but I accept for now that it will not have an accompanying category. - Fayenatic london (talk) 17:20, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Pattern, antipattern

Enlightenment struck me ;-) Could we maybe directly set out to describe patterns and antipatterns in the project namespace. This might reduce the numbers of different tags and "negotiability qualifiers". I would really like to have a comprehensive description of all wikipedia community patterns, hopefully with reduced noise from nomic players and new people. ^^;;

(that, and I could possibly drag in ward cunningham in)

Of course, I realise that at one point, meta was envisioned as our pattern repository. I don't think that's going to work. The whole en.wikipedia structure seems to be hardening, which is a major problem. --Kim Bruning 14:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC) --Kim Bruning 14:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, so just "pattern" and folks can discuss the pros and cons till they're blue in the face. Hmmm... isn't that our normal NPOV process? I wonder what Cunningham would think of "NPOVpatterns" ;-P --Kim Bruning 15:08, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

The same thing I do every day, Pinky. To try to take over the world!. No wait, that's scheduled for next week...

Actually, it is the same thing I've been trying to do every day. I'm trying to build up a body of knowledge that describes how wikipedia works, and to pass it on to new people, so that they become acculturated and able to help out effectively.

Our current project namespace *seems* to be aimed at that objective, but fails miserably at it, by any measure you could possibly conceive.

So I'm constantly trying to think up ways to fix the project namespace. Maybe I'm wrong to expect project namespace is useful, and should start anew elsewhere. That would suck though, since the pages in the project namespace do claim to explain how wikipedia works.

--Kim Bruning 15:21, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Oh right, how does patterns help? Well, it pushes focus away from people trying to control wikipedia back to describing how it works. Well I hope it would, anyway. My current only objective is to describe How Things Work right now, because how can you expect to control something you don't even understand? --Kim Bruning 15:26, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

It's not one document. It's a set of documents. One project is the simplified ruleset, see Wikipedia_talk:Simplified_Ruleset#Historic_information for the full run, culminating in Our 5 pillars

Currently I've been working on Wikipedia:Consensus.

Sometimes I also describe things together with friends, such as how consensus can change (since merged), or describe processes I discover such as bold revert discuss... so I'm not starting on this today... it's what I've been trying to get a handle on since I handed off The mediation cabal. At one point, David Gerard was supposed to have quit the arbcom to help me out, but I don't see his presence much in the project namespace... maybe he gave up, I don't know.

I generally have no trouble getting new people to actually read my stuff, people pick it up pretty quick. :-) --Kim Bruning 17:23, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:FLOW

I reformatted WP:FLOW. Hope you like it! Kamope·?·! Sign! 15:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

User:Radiant!/Classification of admins

Missed some plants - User:Guettarda, User:Plumbago and User:Saxifrage. And please fix User:Dragons flight - seeing User:Dragon's flight as a redlink really worried me for a moment. Guettarda 15:32, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Yep, sometimes even with pretty flowers...but mostly a scraggly tree. Guettarda 16:13, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Are you guettarda speciosa, guettarda crispiflora, or another species? KillerChihuahua^?!? 17:43, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm...I think I'll have to go with Guettarda odorata, since its the species that caused me the most confusion in the field, or Guettarda elliptica, since it's the spiniest. Guettarda 18:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Classification of admins

1. Primate classification should go under Mammals, not as a seperate list.
2. It seems to me that User:FireFox is a program, not a mammal.

Eli Falk 15:40, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

No, a fox is definitely a mammal, even if it's undergoing oxydizing reaction :) The mammals cat is pretty large so I'm excluding humans and primates for now. >Radiant< 15:44, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Since FireFox is the name of a relatively well-known program, it seems to me that the intention of that user was the program, not the canine animal. Eli Falk 15:47, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Linux Software category

I am a regular contributer to articles regarding the linux operating system. A few days ago I noticed that you have closed the discussion Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 20 recommending deleting the Linux software category. I have read the discussion on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 20 but unfortunately I did not realise this discussion was taking place until it was too late. I strongly believe that removing this category is a mistake. The reason why this is a mistake is that if you are a linux user it is immensely useful to use the Linux software category to find software which you can run on linux instead of trawling through thousands of pieces of software which will only run on windows.

It was suggested on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 20 that the Linux software category be changed to category:Unix/POSIX software. This is is much better idea then just deleting in the Linux software category. Also there is the following Operating system software categories which I do not have a problem with: Category:BeOS software, Category:BSD software, Category:Mac OS X software, Category:Mac OS software, Category:Palm OS software, Category:Unix software, Category:Pocket PC software, Category:Solaris software and Category:Windows software, So why should we delete Category:Linux software?

Also the discussion at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 20 was not really that fair as many people who regularly use the linux software category did not even know that this discussion was even taking place until it was deleted. Why was this discussion not on the Category talk:Linux software page as more people who actually use the category could have contributed to the discussion.

I have been in contact with the person responsible for running the bot which removed the category User:Cyde and he said that I should contact you as you closed the discussion. I am very keen to resolve this issue as quickly as possible.--Benjaminevans82 19:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for replying to my original message. Also thank you for restoring the Linux software category page. The way I see things we have four options. 1)We create a category: POSIX software 2)We create a category: unix-like software 3)We create a category: linux software just for software written for the linux operating system. 4)We have a category: linux software for software which will run on linux. The problem with option 1 in having a POSIX software category is that it is a "grey" term in the fact that some operating systems are fully compliant and some are mostly compliant. Plus you will get software which will run on some POSIX operating systems and not on others. The problem with option 2 using a unix-like software category is again that it is a "grey" term also you will get software which will run on some unix-like operating systems and not on others. The problem with option 3 is having a linux software category with a note saying that only software written specifically for linux. Some software will have a debate on whether or not it was specifically written for linux or not. By having the fourth option (Which is what we originally had) which is having a category: "linux software" for any software which will run on linux. It is very simple to add an article to this category or not. It either runs on linux or it does not. Choosing this option means that we can leave the categorys: BSD software, Solaris software, windows software etc alone. Plus the fact that people running Solaris, Mac OS X or linux can easily find software which will run on their operating system. I am very much in favour of choosing option 4. Let me know what you think --Benjaminevans82 01:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Arbitration

I have removed the request from WP:RFAR pending the outcome of the mediation. If either of you wants to reinstate the request, please let me or one of the other clerks know. Thatcher131 21:53, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Cast Lists

I don't envy you the job of closing that one (which I have stayed right out of) & generally agree with you re lists, but I have noticed in AfD what seems to be an increasing tendency to vote for deletion of lists on the grounds they ought to be categories, when of course in the Category discussions the cry is the other way. Some useful and encyclopedic information is, I'm sure, getting squeezed out in the middle. I speak with some nervousness, having just launched List of Printmakers, which is partly an effort to enable reform of a chaotic and error-riddled categorisation situation - two different sets of categories, neither complete etc. - Johnbod 14:17, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we looked at a sortable list (Project Visual arts talk) but decided that for an "open" list that will never be complete, it was a bit too daunting & would put many people off adding or correcting, plus maybe making it too long, and needing more maintenance. Johnbod 14:40, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Blnguyen

Classification as a primate is probably based on his self-portraits; see User_talk:Blnguyen for the latest of them. Guettarda 14:49, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

• Sorry, it goes by name, not portrait or however-you-consider-yourself. Otherwise I wouldn't have thrown Tim Starling with the birds :) >Radiant< 14:50, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Yep, I understand...which is why, although I thought it would be amusing, I didn't add WMC under mustelid. Guettarda 14:57, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I wasnt aware it was by name.Bakaman 00:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Places of local interest

I ran across this obscure guideline yesterday and saw how you and Rebbecca had not been satisfied with a legitimate consensus in December, and how no meaningful consensus seemed to be reached afer your last removal of the guideline tag. Therefore, I reposted the proposal tag. It seemed to me that someone had slipped-in a guideline under the radar during the holidays, ignoring your position.

If you've been on top of this I respect your decision, but I'm concerned that a few people can add to the guideline creep without more interaction with the mainstream.

Sincerely,

Kevin

--Kevin Murray 16:27, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

Removing comments..

Hi Radiant,

Is it allowed or not to remove comments from ones user talk? Does the 3RR rule apply to users talk page? Thank youJidan 17:14, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

I see, so you mean I own my talk page, i.e. I can remove any comments I want just as I feel, and the 3RR is not applied whatsoever...Interesting! BTW, you protected List of Arab scientists and scholars and forgot to add the protection tag. Jidan 16:29, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Classifying admins

Heeey - I like it! Sigh - another new page for my watchlist. I've added myself with a new section (Geographical - it's a place in Scotland, though it also means "bignose", apparently :) If you feel it'd be better elsewhere, feel free to move it. Grutness...wha? 01:01, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Figure you know this

re: Category:Wikipedians_who_welcome_new_users -- this cat seems to be orphaned, and for some reason a parent of the WP:WC category (i.e. those via {{User WelCom}}, and I hope the other two user boxes!). Since I know you've been involved at one point or another with users, user boxes and user cats, and all that controversy and are a general wiz at categories... figured you might want to tuck it in warm and snuggly where it belongs in the user category tree. (Sorry, been too much talk-talk politics, too little finish finish loose ends tonight! <g>) Thanks and Cheers! // FrankB 04:51, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Re: Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2007_February_1#Category:Biographies

I think the consensus of the debate was closer to renaming to Category:Biographies (books) than Category:Biography books... Could You review it? feydey 08:55, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Admin survey

I've created the above-mentioned page, as you have previously done one I thought it would be a good idea for you to look through first and add any questions you think should be but has not been included, and provide any comments if necessary. It would also be interesting to see how the opinions of editors would be in "peacetimes" (compared to the previous one done at the peak of Userbox Wars). - Cheers, Mailer Diablo 11:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

• Thanks! I'll take them in account, and yes this is a pretty rough draft. - Mailer Diablo 12:43, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • I've refined the survey. How is it now? - Mailer Diablo 13:31, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
    • IRC op(erator) access. ;) - Mailer Diablo 13:44, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• I think it's more to see which are amongst the most important factor in suitability for adminship. Many support !votes don't explain themselves in detail. - Mailer Diablo 13:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
  • Subpage for each question or section? - Mailer Diablo 14:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
• I think there will be very interesting observations upon the maturity of the survey results, in particular when we actually try to make some conclusions/interpretation out of it. (a few of them appear to be contradictory) - Best regards, Mailer Diablo 16:12, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Policy history

Hi, Radiant!.

I've been loosely following the dispute resolution process between yourself and Badlydrawnjeff. There's an idea I thought of a little while ago, that you and/or Jeff might be interested in, and I thought now's as good a time as any to mention it.

The background is that, in the interactions I've seen between the two of you on guideline talk pages, I've noticed that you'll both claim that your understanding of policy formation is firmly grounded in experience with guideline development. That strikes me as an empirical question, and one that I think it would be quite interesting to investigate.

What do you think of working up a page where we summarize the histories of several policy pages, guideline pages and essays, and take note of the various roles played by description of existing practice, straw polls, tags, etc. It would probably be of interest to many to see how some of our most broadly agreed upon principles acquired the consensus support they enjoy, and by what path some of our more controversial pages have navigated their turbulent waters.

I set up an empty template at User:GTBacchus/Policy formation the other day. It think it could be a page that might facilitate a productive interaction between you and Jeff, with side benefits for the rest of Wikipedia, and for any sociologist who wants to puzzle out just how this lunatic-run asylum operates and grows. What do you think? -GTBacchus^(talk) 05:55, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

MOS consideration of WP:LOW

Hi Radiant, I think your opinion would be valued here; there seems to be an ongoing debate about whether works, filmographies and the like should be listed earliest-to-last or recent-to-earliest chronology. I think it's stepped up a gear since some editors have been going around editing filmographies on a lot of actor articles according to their view of how the MOS should be, and this cause for some concern with regards to possible disruption.

So if you get some time to comment on the issue I think it would be appreciated. Kind regards, Ekantik ^talk 06:10, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 January 25

Thank you for closing the contentious actors by seres debate, even if it is only temporary until such gets listed again, however, I would like to discuss its implementation with you. You list the job for the bots here to change the categories to "cast members", however, your own closing words were for simply "cast". Ordinarily, this wouldn't be a problem, except for a previous CfD on some of the categories that said the same thing. In short, some of the most used series categories have been renamed twice in the last month, and I would appreciate them being reverted to the original "cast" wording, which was sufficient, and in line with discussions. Thank you. --BlueSquadronRaven 22:36, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

While we're on the subject. The renaming has made the listifying process more confused. Some of the CFD tags were removed by the closing bot, but those that were not renamed kept the tags. This has led to the renomination of some of the renamed cats. I just finished tagging all the categories with {{listify}}. I'm still uncertain as to how this process of deleting these after lists have been created should proceed. I closed current CFD's as "speedy deletes" for categories nominated for deletion that mention that the lists exist. As there are hundreds of these categories, it seems like a waste of everyone's time to have a new discussion each time we are ready to delete another category. Since you seemed to volunteer to delete these categories once the lists exist, by what process do you think the deletions should be implemented? Please reply at WT:CFD#Template:Listify.-- Samuel Wantman 10:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of Linux Software category 2

Hi, I am not sure if you have read my second entry in the section "Deletion of Linux software category". It is just that I am waiting for a reply so that I can make alterations. --Benjaminevans82 23:19, 18 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (New Zealand)

Hi Radiant!

Not sure why you marked this page as {{historical}} - it is in regular use. The fact that the NC page itself hasn't been edited for a while simply indicates that it's pretty much agreed on, as far as I can see. It's certainly these conventions that are used to name articles relating to places in New Zealand. Grutness...wha? 12:44, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Hm. It's a while ago... not sure where the discussions were. The basic reason it hasn't been touched is that I simply wrote out what was already being used and was already listed elsewhere on WP. I just consolidated the NZ info onto the page so that all the NZ-related naming conventions were in one spot (ISTR that I did this in part because there were occasional queries about it at the NZ Wikipedians' notice board and WP:NZ). The naming conventions were at places like Wikipedia:Naming conventions (places)#Place names in New Zealand for the geographical articles (also mentioned in passing at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (landforms)). Offhand, I can't remember where I found the Maori guidelines, but I moved those from elsewhere, too - those guidelines certainly weren't of my initial creation (in fact, I don't agree with all of them, buit it seems to be what's used). Grutness...wha? 13:08, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

PS - I've found part of the discussion relating to Maori naming that I probably used in part for that section - it's at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject New Zealand/Archive1#Macrons. Grutness...wha? 13:11, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. To be honest, I didn't realise it was still marked "proposed", which explains the original move to historical... Grutness...wha? 13:17, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Category:Terrorists by nationality

Shouldn't it be better to rename all of these to something like "armed militants" or something?

Also (unrelated) what do you think of my essay: Wikipedia:Do not write articles using categories

I am working on a wikiproject to better deal with categories: Wikipedia:Wikiproject Category Sorting. What do you think?

--Cat out 13:56, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Naming conventions (immigration)

There are a large number of problems with this proposal. I'd like to fight it passing rather than be accepted. How can I do that?-Psychohistorian 14:02, 19 February 2007 (UTC)